ill 


Jffrflttt  %  Slibrarg  of 

Mtt{mnt}^th  by  l|tm  to 

tlfp  Sjtbrarg  of 

Prtnrrton  JUIiPobgtral  g>pmtnarg 


lii 


I 


THE  BIBLE  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 


m\k\  %^^ 


[Read  at  the  Summer  School  of  the  American  In- 
,  stitute  of  Christian  Philosophy,  July  6,  1893.] 

By  Prof.  Howard  Osgood,  D.D  ,  LL.D., 

Of  the  Rochester  Theological  Seminary. 

THE  wail  of  man  wherever  found,  the  heart-cry  that  follows 
the  evening  sun  around  the  world,  the  testimony  of  every 
religion,  is  that  man  is  a  guilty  sinner  and  needs  salvation  from 
himself  by  an  omnipotent  and  gracious  hand.  The  Lama's 
prayer  wheel,  the  Chinese  temple,  the  Indian  pilgrimages,  the 
African  fetish,  the  crowded  spires  of  Europe  and  America,  all 
bear  branded  on  them  the  one  prayer,  "  Save  us  from  our 
sins."  Listen  to  the  accusing  cry  of  man  against  man,  of  nation 
against  nation,  of  church  against  church,  of  party  against  party, 
of  newspaper  against  newspaper.  From  the  garden  of  Eden, 
from  the  Egyptian  book  of  the  dead  rising  up  from  the  horizon 
of  earliest  monumental  history  of  man,  from  the  earliest  hymns 
of  the  Babylonians,  from  all  the  historians  and  poets  of  man's 
greatest  deeds  and  deepest  wants,  from  the  blood  of  Abel  to  the 
blood  of  Christ,  through  all  the  forms  of  man's  inhumanity  to 
man,  the  sin  of  man  is  stamped  v/herever  the  foot  of  man  has 
trod.  The  best  and  wisest  *nen  have  most  deeply  known  and  told 
this  fact. 

Into  the  midst  of  a  world  burdened  with  sin  and  longing  for 
peace  and  rest,  the  Bible  comes  with  a  very  practical  claim  and 
test  of  its  being  the  Word  of  the  only  God  :  that  it  alone  reveals 
the  true  character  of  sin  and  the  way  of  salvation  from  sin  to 
peace  of  heart  and  holiness  of  hfe.  Man,  Christian  and  heathen, 
has  invented  a  thousand  ways  to  escape  his  sin,  but  not  one  of 
them  leads  to  peace  and  holiness.  Is  it  possible  to  put  this  claim 
of  the  Bible  to  a  clear  test  ?  Can  it  change  the  heart  of  the 
worst  of  men  and  spread  from  heart  to  heart  until  a  whole  people 
is  turned  from  every  evil  and  misery  which  the  heart  of  man  can 
invent  to  the  love  and  worship  of  God,  to  purity,  peace,  holiness, 
and  a  well  ordered  state  ? 

83 


84  THE  BIBLE  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Now  it  is  just  at  this  day  when  the  Bible  in  certain  learned  cir- 
cles is  denied  as  a  revelation,  as  the  Word  of  the  living  God, 
that  we  are  able  to  show  this  test  in  the  clearest  possible  light. 
It  is  in  this  day  when  the  inheritance  of  acquired  traits  is  a 
doctrine  used  to  account  for  the  persistence  of  Christianity  in  the 
world  and  to  deny  the  miraculous  in  that  persistence  that  we 
turn  to  those  peoples  whose  acquired  traits  through  unknown 
ages  have  been  filth  of  body,  vileness  of  mind,  cruelty  in  all  its 
forms,  until  the  last  stage  of  human  degradation  and  sin  has  been 
reached  and  men  have  made  human  flesh  their  greatest  feast. 
We  will  go  to  the  cannibal  islands  and  coasts  of  the  southern 
Pacific,  some  unvisited  by  foreigners  till  the  man  with  the  Bible 
came,  others  taught  even  hitherto  unknown  vilenesses  by  visit- 
ing foreigners,  but  all  distrustful  of  every  other  man  and  standing 
with  the  ever-ready  hatchet  to  prepare  another  feast  of  human 
flesh. 

It  is  now  about  fifty  years  since  these  islands  were  visited  by 
men  who  brought  the  Bible.  They  came  to  commend  the  Bible 
to  these  savages.  Through  what  terrors,  dangers  and  sufferings 
of  body  and  mind  these  missionaries  passed  before  one  of  these 
savages  would  listen  to  the  story  of  the  Bible,  it  is  not  my  pur- 
pose to  rehearse.  But  from  New  Zealand  and  the  south  to  the 
Fiji,  New  Hebrides  and  New  Guinea,  there  are  now  islands 
densely  inhabited  where  all  forms  of  savagery  have  passed  away, 
where  prayer  to  God  is  heard  in  every  household,  where  a 
stranger  is  far  safer  at  night  than  in  London  or  New  York,  where 
in  all  forms  of  life  the  nakedness  of  heathenism  has  been  ex- 
changed for  clothing  and  a  right  mind.  And  these  former  can- 
nibals attribute  this  utter  change  in  themselves  and  in  their  fel- 
lows, not  to  the  missionary  or  his  arguments,  but  to  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Bible  brought  home  to  their  hearts  by  a  power  they 
could  not  resist.  After  years  of  seeming  fruitless  work  a  man 
read  one  day  before  a  crowd  of  these  jeering  savages  the  third 
chapter  of  John's  gospel.  He  read  "God  so  loved  the  world, 
that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  son,  that  whosoever  believeth  on 
him  should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life."  A  naked  giant 
with  spear  and  bludgeon  strode  towards  him  and  blurted  out, 
"What  is  that?    Say  it  again."     It  was  read  again  and  sped  as 


THE  BIBLE  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM.  85 

an  arrow  to  the  heart  of  the  questioner,  who  became  a  faithful 
follower  in  life  and  in  thought  of  the  only  begotten  Son  who  died 
for  him  ;  a  single  example  out  of  thousands. 

But  the  proof  of  change  does  not  end  here.  One  of  the  first 
things  these  changed  heathen  desire  and  work  for  is  the  transla- 
tion of  the  whole  Bible  into  their  language.  Great  as  are  the  gifts 
made  in  Christian  lands  for  the  circulation  of  the  Bible,  they  are 
far  below  the  relative  value  of  the  gifts  to  the  same  purpose  by 
these  converted  cannibals.  One-half,  two-thirds  of  all  their  prop- 
erty is  not  an  unusual  sum  for  these  new  believers  in  the  Bible 
to  give  for  printing  and  circulating  the  book  that  has  been  to 
them  a  well-spring  of  life.  Still  even  this  a  man  might  do  and  yet, 
according  to  the  Bible  itself,  be  no  more  than  sounding  brass  and 
a  tinkling  cymbal.  This  is  not  the  supreme  proof  that  these 
hereditary  cannibals,  changed  to  believers  in  the  statements  of 
the  Bible,  give  of  their  change.  All  around  them  the  ocean  is 
dotted  with  islands  filled  with  cannibals,  as  fierce  and  cruel  as 
they  themselves  once  were.  They  know  better  than  any  others 
what  awaits  them  at  these  islands  where  the  Bible  never  has 
come.  A  party  of  heathen  were  sitting  around  the  fire  in  a 
cocoanut  grove,  and  one  of  these  changed  men  was  telling  them 
of  the  Bible,  and  of  his  intention  to  carry  its  good  news  to  a 
neighboring  district.  The  heathen  begged  him  not  to  go,  saying 
it  was  madness  to  think  of  it ;  the  water  was  full  of  crocodiles, 
and  the  bush  full  of  snakes.  Are  there  any  people  there  ?  he 
asked.  O,  yes,  they  replied,  but  they  are  dreadful  savages  and 
cannibals,  great  warriors,  and  very  treacherous.  That  is  enough, 
said  the  believer  ;  wherever  there  are  people,  we  must  go.  And 
so  they  have  gone  to  the  deepest  dens  of  Satan's  retreats.  They 
have  died  by  the  hatchet,  and  been  eaten.  They  have  died  by 
the  fearful  fevers  of  the  low  coasts,  but  for  everyone  who  has 
fallen,  two  are  ready  to  take  his  place.  These  men  do  not  go 
alone.  The  women,  who  but  a  few  years  ago  were  treated  as 
slaves  and  beasts  of  burden,  go  as  the  wives  of  these  changed 
men,  with  courage  as  high  and  devotion  as  constant  in  life  or 
death  as  their  husbands. 

How   do   such   men   die?    Namuri   had  lived   in   a   foreign 
heathen  village,  where  with  his  wife  he  had  led  a  pure  and  humble 


86  THE  BIBLE  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

life.  The  heathen  priests  feared  his  influence,  and  one  of  them 
sprang-  upon  him,  with  killing  stone  and  club,  and  thought  he  had 
killed  him  ;  but  Namuri  partially  recovered.  When  urged  to 
leave  that  village  and  seek  a  safer  residence,  he  replied,  "  When  I 
see  them  thirsting  for  my  blood,  I  just  see  myself  when  the  mis- 
sionary first  came  to  my  island.  I  desired  to  murder  him,  as 
they  now  desire  to  murder  me.  Had  he  stayed  away  from  such 
danger,  I  would  have  remain  id  heathen  ;  but  he  came  and  taught, 
till,  by  the  grace  of  God,  I  was  changed  to  what  I  am.  Now  the 
same  God  who  changed  me  to  this,  can  change  these  poor  heathen 
to  love  and  serve  Him."  A  few  days  more,  and  the  same  savage 
priest  gave  him  a  crushing  blow,  from  which  he  died  a  few  hours 
after.  Among  his  last  words  were,  "  O,  Lord  Jesus,  forgive  them, 
for  they  know  not  what  they  are  doing,  O,  take  not  away  all  Thy 
servants  from  Tanna.  Take  not  away  Thy  worship  from  this 
dark  island.  O  God,  bring  all  the  Tannese  to  love  and  follow 
Jesus." 

Great  as  have  been  the  triumphs  of  the  Bible  in  these  savage 
islands,  they  have  been  due,  as  the  missionaries  confess,  far  more 
to  the  zeal  of  the  natives  than  to  any  other  human  means. 

Among  all  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  Bible,  none  are 
greater  than  this  miracle  of  the  resurrection  which  has  been  in 
plain  sight  of  the  world  these  past  sixty  years.  It  is  one  of  the 
nineteenth  century  proofs  of  the  words  of  the  Bible,  "  As  the 
Father  raiseth  the  dead  and  maketh  them  alive,  even  so  the  Son 
also  maketh  alive  whom  he  will."  "  It  is  the  spirit  that  maketh 
alive"  (John  vi.  63  ;  II.  Cor.  iii.  6).  "  God,  being  rich  in  mercy,  for 
his  great  love  wherewith  he  loved  us,  even  when  we  were  dead 
through  our  trespasses,  made  us  alive  together  with  Christ  (by- 
grace  have  ye  been  saved),  and  raised  us  up  with  him,  and  made 
us  sit  with  him  in  the  heavenly  places,  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  that  in 
the  ages  to  come  he  might  show  the  exceeding  riches  of  his 
grace  in  kindness  toward  us  in  Christ  Jesus  :  for  by  grace  have 
ye  been  saved  through  faith  :  and  that  not  of  yourselves,  it  is 
the  gift  of  God  :  not  of  works,  that  no  man  shall  glory.  For  we 
are  his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  for  good  works^ 
which  God  afore  prepared  that  we  should  walk  in  them"  (Eph.  ii. 
4-10).     **  Of  his  own  will  begat  he  us  with  the  word  of  truth" 


THE  BIBLE  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM.  8/ 

(James  i.  i8).  "Sanctify  them  in  thy  truth  ;  thy  word  is  truth" 
(John  xvi.  17). 

I  submit  that  the  experience  of  these  formerly  savage,  now 
truly  Christian  islanders,  is,  as  they  assert,  an  unimpeachable 
proof  that  the  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God  to  the  human  soul  which 
the  Holy  Spirit  uses  to  restore  man  to  the  image  of  God  in 
purity,  holiness,  peace  and  rest.  There  are  innumerable  other 
proofs  equally  positive.  The  same  proof  is  found  wherever  man, 
convinced  of  his  sin,  turns  from  himself  to  seek  after  and  find 
God.  Every  land  now  has  those  who  are  the  living  proofs  that 
God  by  His  Word  has  raised  them  from  the  dead  and  given  them 
life  in  Christ. 

But  all  these  tests  and  proofs  are  idle  wind  to  men  who  will 
not  taste  and  see  that  the  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God.  The  con- 
vincing proof  is  not  a  philosophical  argument,  or  myriads  of  con- 
verts, or  the  belief  of  parents,  or  the  authority  of  learning,  but  it 
is  to  each  one,  just  what  it  is  to  these  islanders,  a  deep  convic- 
tion of  sin  and  a  discovery  of  life  in  Christ  as  promised  by  God's 
Word.  That  was  Paul's  experience,  and  that  has  been  the  ex- 
perience of  every  one  who  has  made  proof  of  the  Word  of  God 
by  trusting  all  its  promises.  They  know  it  to  be  God's  Word 
with  a  certainty  that  is  unshakable.  They  feed  on  its  heavenly 
manna  every  morning.  They  drink  of  the  stream  of  its  pleas- 
ures. They  find  Christ  everywhere  in  this  Word  ;  even  where 
they  had  least  expected  to  behold  Him  ;  and  "  he  that  hath  seen 
Christ  in  the  Bible  hath  seen  the  Father,"  and  they  know  that 
the  words  the  Father  gave  Christ,  Christ  gives  to  them. 

If  by  Higher  Criticism  is  meant  the  criticism  represented  by 
Kuenen,  Wellhausen  and  their  party  on  the  Old  Testament,  and 
by  Pfleiderer,  Harnack  and  their  party  on  the  New,  and  they  are 
the  chief  representatives  of  what  they  call  historical  criticism, 
then  it  is  easy  to  tell  what  this  criticism  says  about  the  Bible. 
They  assert  that  they  examine  the  Bible  as  they  do  any  other 
book,  to  find  a  theory  that  accounts  for  all  the  facts  they  see  in 
the  Bible.  They  have  reached  a  theory  about  the  formation  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  which  they  explain  and  defend 
in  large  and  learned  works. 

The  fundamental  principle  of  their  criticism,  as  defined  by 


88  THE  BIBLE  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Kuenen,  is  that  the  supernatural  is  excluded  from  all  considera- 
tion, the  purely  natural  being  sufficient  to  explain  everything. 
Men  who  believe  in  the  supernatural,  they  say,  are  their  oppo- 
nents. This  fundamental  principle  of  course  excludes  all  belief 
in  and  all  consideration  of  miracles,  which  never  did  occur  and 
which  no  testimony  is  sufficient  to  establish.  Of  course  if  there 
is  no  supernatural  in  the  world,  no  miracle,  there  has  been  no 
revelation  from  God,  which  would  be  a  miracle,  and  there  can  be 
no  foretelling  of  events  and  persons  far  distant  in  the  future. 
No  supernatural,  no  miracle,  no  revelation,  no  prophecies — these 
are  the  necessary  presuppositions,  according  to  this  school,  of  an 
unprejudiced  study  of  the  Bible.  Kuenen  on  the  Old  Testament 
and  Pfleiderer  on  the  New  assert  these  facts. 

But  no  supernatural,  no  miracle,  no  revelation,  no  prophecy, 
rule  God  not  only  out  of  the  Bible  but  out  of  the  world,  which 
seems  rather  a  large  assumption  by  men  who  profess  to  be  the 
only  cool,  unprejudiced  investigators  and  searchers  for  the  truth. 
Starting  from  these  few  simple  and  universal  propositions, 
they  come  out  at  the  end  of  their  learned  works  just  where  they  be- 
gan, for  these  works  were  written  to  be  the  proof  of  these  propo- 
sitions.    These  writers  cannot  claim  that  they  discovered  these 
to  them  axiomatic  truths.     Voltaire,  Diderot,  D'Alembert,  Hol- 
bach,  Helvetius  and  a  host  of  others  in  France  during  all  the 
last  century  ;  Frederic   II.,  King  of  Prussia,  1740-86,  the  Berlin 
Academy  under  him,  most  of  the  professors  in  the  German  uni- 
versities, and  the  majority  of  German  preachers  during  the  last 
half  of  the  last  century,  held  and  taught  these  fundamental  propo- 
sitions, and  they  have  been  held  ever  since  by  the  majority  of 
theological  professors  in  the  German  universities.     There  is  no 
occasion  to  doubt  the  diligence,  the  honesty,   the  learning  of 
these  professors.     No  one  is  ever  called  to  a  theological  profes- 
sorship in  a  German  university  because  he  is  a  converted  man,  or 
beHeves  the  Bible.     The  one  question  is.  Is  he  sufficiently  learned 
and  can  he  teach .?     Pfleiderer,  professor  of  practical  theology, 
and  Harnack,  professor  of  Church  history,  in  Berlin,  do  not  be- 
lieve in  the  supernatural.     Wellhausen,  a  leader  in  this  criticism 
of  the  Old  Testament,  declares  himself  a  polytheist;  Kuenen — 
whose  purpose  in  life,  his  sympathetic  biographer  tells  us,  was  to 


THE  BIBLE  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM.  89 

Strip  from  Christianity  every  remnant  of  supernaturalism,  which 
means  that  Christ  is  not  God,  not  born  of  a  virgin,  or  raised 
from  the  dead — Kuenen  was  professor  of  theology  at  Leiden, 
and  secretary  of  the  Society  for  the  Defence  of  the  Christian  Re- 
ligion. So  it  is  no  bar  to  a  man's  being  a  Protestant  theological 
professor  in  Europe  that  he  does  not  believe  in  the  supernatural. 

For  twenty-five  years  the  peculiar  phase  of  anti-supernatural 
criticism  which  is  called  in  this  country  "  Higher  Criticism,"  has 
busied  itself  with  discovering  in  the  Old  Testament  contradictory 
narratives,  statements,  dates,  and  above  all  and  in  all  a  wretched, 
incomprehensible  editing  of  the  whole.  The  works  of  Kuenen, 
Wellhausen,  Budde,  Cornill  and  their  followers  are  filled  with 
their  proofs  of  these  contradictions.  They  have  discovered  no 
new  facts  for  grammar  or  interpretation.  They  have  added 
nothing  to  the  lexicology  of  Hebrew.  They  appeal  constantly 
to  scientific  exegesis,  but  they  have  nothing  beyond  these  afore- 
mentioned fundamental  principles  which  every  intelligent,  trained 
scholar  does  not  possess.  Having  for  twenty-five  years  followed 
this  criticism  in  all  its  works,  I  can  speak  for  myself  and  say  that 
I  do  not  see  one  discrepancy  where  they  see  a  hundred  contra- 
dictions, and  I  turn  from  their  works  to  the  Bible  as  one  turns 
from  a  dark  Indian  temple  with  its  hideous  forms  of  man-made 
gods  among  a  thousand  pillars,  to  the  fair  light  of  the  sun  in 
God's  temple  of  the  sky. 

These  writers  declare  they  have  proved  the  historical  parts  of 
the  Bible  to  be  no  history  at  all.  But  they  have  only  proved  it 
to  those  wiio  agree  that  the  supernatural  is  to  be  excluded  from 
all  consideration.  They  assert  that  the  early  history  of  the 
Bible  is  fable  and  legend,  because  man  is  there  represented  as 
having  a  high  ideal  of  God,  and  a  religious  sense  that  only  be- 
longs to  later  ages.  But  their  fellow  professors  who  teach  us  of 
early  man  as  he  is  shown  by  his  monuments  in  Egypt  and  Asia, 
tell  us  that  the  monuments  prove  over  and  over  again  that  man 
as  he  first  appears  has  a  high  ideal  of  God,  of  morals  and  an 
elaborate  scheme  of  religion.  Whom  shall  we  believe  if  we  rely 
only  on  learned  human  testimony?  This  criticism  dogmatically 
states  that  the  Israelites  could  not  write  before  David,  and, 
therefore,  composed  no  books,  kept  no  records  before  that  time. 


90  THE  BIBLE  />  ND  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

B.C.  lOCX).  Egyptology  and  Assyriology  give  us  the  myriad  proofs 
that  as  soon  as  man  appears  on  monuments,  before  B.C.  3000,  it 
is  with  the  hand  of  a  master  in  all  written  characters  and  in 
power  of  expression,  and  that  the  Semites  of  whom  the  Hebrews 
were  a  part,  from  the  earliest  times  held  in  their  trained  hands 
all  the  great  roads  of  the  world's  commerce.  Three  hundred 
and  thirty-six  letters  have  been  unearthed,  all  written  before  the 
usual  date  of  the  Exodus.  They  are  from  kings  of  Babylon  and 
Mesopotamia,  from  Egyptian  prefects  on  the  Syrian  and  Pales- 
tinian coast  to  the  Pharaohs.  They  are  written  in  a  Semitic 
tongue,  proving  that  at  that  early  day  Semitic  was  the  language 
of  diplomacy  and  commerce  over  Western  Asia  and  with  Egypt. 
The  Jew  has  never,  except  in  this  criticism,  been  accounted  the 
dunce  of  nations. 

I  have  said  that  every  religion  testifies  that  the  sore  of  the 
heart  is  sin,  and  the  yearning  cry  of  man  everywhere  is  for  sal- 
vation from  his  sin.  But  there  is  one  spot  on  earth  where  you  will 
never  hear  sin  mentioned  or  salvation  spoken  of  It  is  in  this 
criticism.  There  where  the  Bible  is  discussed  from  Genesis  to 
Revelation  by  Protestant  theological  professors,  where  thousands 
of  pages  are  crowded  with  all  the  marks  of  human  learning, 
where  men  grow  old  in  teaching  others,  there  reigns  the  silence 
of  death  over  the  open  sore  of  the  world  that  brings  all  its  tears, 
over  the  deepest  woes  and  most  ardent  longing  of  the  human 
soul.  Surely  there  is  something  wrong  with  this  criticism,  when 
this  is  its  practical  result  in  all  its  works.  That  wrong  is  at  its 
base,  in  its  fundamental  principles,  which  through  all  the  cen- 
turies have  brought  forth  the  same  result. 

For  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  the  two  views  of  the  Bible 
set  forth  in  this  paper  have  run  side  by  side.  Learned  men  have 
in  great  works  denied  openly,  or  assumed  that  there  never  has 
been,  a  revelation  from  God  in  words  to  man  ;  never  a  miracle, 
or  prophecy ;  that  the  Bible  is  only  a  human  book  swarming  with 
errors  ;  that  the  only  religion  is  morality ;  and  man  knows 
nothing  of  a  future  world.  On  the  other  side,  men  of  all  con- 
ditions, learned  and  unlearned,  rich  and  poor,  have  believed  that 
the  Bible  is  God's  Word  to  man,  that  miracles  and  prophecy  are 
marks  of  God  in  the  world ;  that  true  religion  is  the  following 


THE  BIBLE  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM.  QT 

of  the  God-man,  Jesus  Christ,  in  faith,  and  love,  and  every  grace; 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  uses  the  Word  of  God  to  turn  man  from  sin 
to  Jesus  Christ  and  holiness  of  life. 

Over  against  the  persistent  same  denial  of  150  years  is  set  the 
fruit  of  belief,  in  covering  this  land  with  spiritual  churches  whose 
annual  increase  is  between  400,000  and  500,000  souls  ;  in  missions 
to  the  heathen  on  which  the  wealth  of  the  churches  is  poured 
out,  and  the  annual  increase  is  more  in  number  than  all  the  deny- 
ing professors  and  students ;  in  publishing  and  selling  annually 
millions  of  copies  of  the  Bible,  whose  circulation  is  far  greater 
and  more  universal  than  any  other  book  ;  in  tract  societies,  Sun- 
day-school societies,  and  all  the  means  of  publication  by  which 
many  millions  of  pages  are  annually  sent  forth  and  paid  for,  to 
recommend  the  Bible  as  God's  Word  to  young  and  old.  And 
these  believers  in  the  Bible  as  God's  Word  are  further  confirmed 
in  their  belief  by  seeing  the  power  of  God  accompany  His  Word, 
to  raise  multitudes  from  the  foul  death  of  sin  to  the  pure  life 
taught  by  that  Word. 

The  two  parties  approach  the  Bible  from  absolutely  opposite 
and  contradictory  sides  :  the  one  approaches  it  from  the  side  of 
the  sufficiency  of  the  human  intellect  to  decide  all  questions 
raised  by  the  Bible,  and  from  the  side  of  the  denial  of  the  super- 
natural in  all  earthly  affairs.  The  other  approaches  the  Bible 
from  a  deep  and  absorbing  conviction  of  their  sin,  and  a  longing 
for  pardon  and  peacfj  from  God.  The  one  finds  in  the  Bible  an 
utter  misunderstanding  of  every  subject  treated  by  it.  The  other 
finds  pardon  and  peace  with  God,  and  knows  with  the  deepest, 
surest  knowledge  possible  to  man,  that  God  is  the  author  of  the 
Bible,  and  they  reverence  and  cherish  it  as  the  most  precious 
possession  in  the  world. 

The  Bible  is  as  powerful  to-day  as  it  ever  has  been,  to  ac- 
complish that  which  God  pleases,  and  to  prosper  whereto  he  sent 
it,  to  convince  man  of  his  sin,  and  assure  him  of  salvation.  The 
proof  of  it  is  the  hundreds  of  thousands  of  men,  women,  children 
who  every  year  are  convinced  of  their  sin,  and  find  the  pardon  and 
peace  of  God  through  His  Word. 


HIGHER    CRITICISM    UNDER    REVIEW, 

By  Prof.  E.  L.  Curtis,  of  the  Yale  Divinity  School : 

Whenever  we  speak  of  the  Bible  we  should  speak  with  rev- 
erence and  humility.  The  speaker  who  preceded  me  dwelt,  in 
the  first  part  of  his  paper,  upon  the  wonderful  work  of  our  mis- 
sionaries in  the  South  Sea  Islands  in  proclaiming  the  truths  of 
the  Bible,  and  he  gave  to  us  a  very  clear  and  a  very  true  picture 
of  what  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God  in  the  hand  of  the  minis- 
ters of  Jesus  Christ  through  their  presentation  of  its  precious 
truths  has  accomplished,  and  I  am  sure  that  he  convinced  you 
here  that  the  Word  of  God  is  sure  and  abiding  and  self-evidenc- 
ing, a  two-edged  sword,  bringing  home  to  the  conscience  and 
bearing  impress  upon  the  life,  changing  the  character  of  man. 
So  far  I  heartily  agree  with  Dr.  Osgood,  and  I  believe  that  he 
has  presented  to  us  one  of  the  very  strongest  arguments  that 
can  be  presented  that  the  Higher  Criticism  in  no  way  invali- 
dates the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God,  because  the  Word  of  God  is 
that  which  comes  home,  testified  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  the 
heart  and  conscience  of  man. 

But  the  word  "  Higher  Criticism,"  which  is  sneered  at,  is  a 
word  which,  whatever  may  have  been  its  origin,  is  now  current- 
ly accepted  in  this  country  as  defining  a  certain  method  of 
knowledge.  Doubtless  it  was  not  the  best  term  which  might 
have  been  chosen.  Very  likely  Eichorn  made  a  mistake  when 
he  called  the  criticism  which  he  used  in  separating  the  book  of 
Genesis  into  its  parts  the  J  higher  Criticism.  It  was  an  unhappy 
term,  but  it  has  passed  over  into  this  country  and  by  it  we  un- 
derstand a  method  of  the  knowledge  of  literature.  When  a 
book  is  presented  you  may  ask  certain  questions  in  regard  to  it. 
You  may  ask  whether  its  ideas  are  true.  You  may  ask  whether 
its  statements  of  fact  are  correct.  You  may  ask  when  and  by 
whom  it  was  written.  You  may  ask  after  its  literary  quality, 
whether  it  is   poetry  or  prose  or  fiction.      You  may  also  ask 

92 


HIGHER  CRITICISM  UNDER  REVIEW.  93 

after  its  text,  whether  that  has  been  correctly  handed  down. 
This  is  an  order  of  interest.  In  investigation  we  would  reverse 
this  order  and  start  with  the  text  first,  and  hence  we  have  vari- 
ous departments  of  criticism.  We  have  textual  criticism.  We 
have  literary  criticism.  We  have  historical  criticism.  We  have 
exegetical  criticism — criticism  that  asks  after  the  true  meaning- 
of  a  writer;  and  we  also  have  philosophical  criticism,  or  criti- 
cism which  asks  after  the  truth  of  ideas.  Now  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism is  the  term  which,  by  general  consent,  is  applied  to  liter- 
ary and  historical  criticism  combined.  Textual  criticism  was 
called  the  "  Lower  Criticism  "  because  it  came  first — first  of  all. 
Then  we  ask  after,  when  and  by  whom  was  a  writing  written. 
We  ask  after  the  historical  probability  of  its  statements.  We 
ask  also  after  its  literary  character,  whether  it  is  prose  or  poetry 
or  fiction,  or  what  is  its  general  literary  style,  and  our  endeavor 
to  answer  these  questions,  which  olten  in  the  answer  may  be 
woven  and  interlaced  together,  we  call  the  Higher  Criticism. 
That  is  the  way  in  which  the  term  is  usually  understood  in  this 
country. 

Now,  in  the  first  place,  we  notice  that  the  Higher  Criticism 
has  no  bearing  upon  the  ideas  or  their  truth.  For  instance,  to 
give  a  plain  and  practical  illustration,  I  may  read  the 
story  of  Joseph  and  the  story  of  Joseph  comes  home  to 
me  with  wonderful  power,  teaching  me  that  I  ought 
to  be  true  to  God  under  the  most  adverse  circum- 
stances, teaching  me  also  the  lesson  that  God  will  not  leave  and 
desert  one  who  is  true  to  Him,  but  in  the  end  will  reward  him. 
And  thus  we  make  the  story  of  Joseph  an  appropriate  subject  for 
a  sermon  for  the  lessons  which  it  contains.  Now  the  question 
in  regard  to  whether  I  shall  be  true  to  God  under  adverse  cir- 
cumstances or  temptation  the  Higher  Criticism  has  absolutely 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with.  But  I  may  take  up  the  story  of 
Joseph  and  I  may  read  it  in  another  way.  I  may  find  certain 
curious  statements  in  this  story.  I  may  find  that  in  one  part, 
in  some  verses,  it  speaks  of  Joseph  being  sold  to  the  Ishmael- 
ites,  and  in  others  to  the  Midianites.  I  may  find  also  that  the 
captain  in  Egypt  is  Potiphar,  the  one  to  whom  Joseph  is  given, 
and  that  he  is  also  the  one  who  has  command  of  the  prison.     I 


94  HIGHER  CRITICISM  UNDER  REVIEW. 

may  find  that  the  story  represents  the  men  opening  the  bag  of 
corn  at  the  inn,  and  finding  the  money  there,  and  being  surpris- 
ed and  terrified,  and  that  the  story  represents  them  also  as  open- 
ing their  bags  at  the  household  and  there,  in  the  presence  of 
their  father,  being  surprised  and  astonished.  I  may  find  that  in 
one  part  of  the  story  Reuben  is  the  one  who  takes  the  leading 
place  as  the  noble  and  generous  one  who  would  deliver  his 
brother,  and  in  the  other  part  that  Judah  takes  this  place.  Put- 
ting all  these  things  together  I  am  drawing  the  conclusion  that 
we  have  in  the  narrative  of  Joseph  two  traditions,  two  stories, 
that  have  come  down  and  have  been  woven  and  fitted  together 
in  one  ;  that  there  have  been  two  general  stories  current  con- 
cerning Joseph,  and  that  the  writer  of  the  book  of  Genesis  took 
the  two  and  presented  what  we  now  have  in  our  present  form  of 
the  Book  of  Genesis.  Now  work  like  that  is  what  we  understand 
by  Higher  Criticism.  Now  the  fact  that  the  story  of  Joseph 
might  be  made  out  as  coming  down  in  this  way,  formed  from 
two  narratives,  has  absolutely  no  bearing  whatever  upon  the 
law  of  life  and  the  law  of  conduct  as  it  is  written  in  that  story. 
Dr.  Osgood  insists  that  there  can  be  only  two  camps;  that  we 
must  either  believe  that  the  Bible  is  absolutely  inerrant  in  all  its 
statements,  or  else  that  we  must  enter  the  other  camp  of  those 
that  deny  the  supernatural.  I  do  not  want  to  misrepresent 
him.     Is  that  the  position,  Dr.  Osgood  > 

Dr.  Osgood  :  I  did  not  take  that  position.  Inerrancy  is  a 
word  quite  general  at  the  present  day. 

Professor  Curtis  :     Will  you  please  define  your  position  .? 

Dr.  Osgood  :  I  have  got  to  take  the  train.  Whilst  I  did 
not  take  that  position,  I  should  be  perfectly  willing  to  do  it  if  it 
is  a  necessity;  but  I  did  not  do  it.  I  only  said  that  the  camp 
was  of  those  who  absolutely  disbeUeved,  and  of  those  who  believe 
in  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God,  and  between  the  camps  there 
were  a  good  many  compromises. 

Professor  Curtis  :  And  that  in  the  end  we  were  bound  to  be 
separated  into  two  camps,  that  there  would  be  no  middle  ground, 
that  those  who  stood  between  were  bound  to  perish.  That  I 
understood  is  your  position.  I  do  not  want  to  misrepresent 
you. 


HIGHER  CRITICISM  UNDER  RE  VIE  W.  95 

Dr.  Osgood  :     Go  on,  my  dear  sir,  I  am  glad  to  hear  you. 

Professor  Curtis :  Very  well.  Now  I  occupy,  I  am  frank  to 
say,  a  position  between.  I  am  forced  to  do  it.  Why  ?  I  am 
forced  to  do  it  by  a  study  of  this  Book,  I  must  interpret  this 
Book  plainly  and  simply  in  a  straightforward,  honest  way.  I 
must  interpret  this  Book  as  I  interpret  language  ordinarily. 
Now  I  find  that  there  are  certain  statements  in  this  Book  which 
I  cannot  explain  away.  For  example,  when  it  says  in  the 
Fourth  Commandment,  "  Six  days  shalt  thou  labor  and  do  all 
thy  work,"  etc.,  I  must  interpret  that  language  according  to  its 
natural  meaning.  It  means  six  literal  days  in  one  case  ;  it 
means  six  literal  days  in  the  other.  The  Hebrew  language 
could  have  said  in  six  periods  if  that  had  been  the  meaning  of 
the  writer,  but  that  was  the  plain,  simple  and  straightforward 
meaning  of  language  in  that  position.  And  also  when  we  say 
that  Adam  lived  a  certain  number  of  years  and  begot  his  son 
Seth,  and  Seth  lived  a  certain  number  of  years  and  begot 
another  son,  I  must  take  that  language  just  as  it  stands,  because 
in  no  other  way  do  I  believe  that  it  was  understood  by  those 
for  whom  it  was  written.  When  it  says  that  at  the  time  when 
Joseph  was  sold  into  Egypt,  Judah  had  his  unhappy  connection 
with  the  Canaanitish  woman  and  the  children  were  born,  and 
then  that  those  children  grew  up,  and  they  also  had  children, 
which  is  equivalent  to  Judah's  great  grandchildren,  and  that 
then  when  we  find  another  list  including  those  great  grand- 
children among  those  that  went  down  with  Jacob  into  Egypt, 
and  the  time  which  had  elapsed  was  only  at  the  most  nineteen 
years  or  about,  I  say  frankly  that  there  must  be  some  discrep- 
ancy here.  When  I  read  in  one  case  that  during  the  days  of 
Samuel  there  was  complete  peace,  and  that  the  Philistines  came 
no  more  into  the  land,  and  then  when  I  go  on  a  little  further 
and  read  that  the  cry  of  the  children  came  up  to  God  for  a  sav- 
iour or  deliverer  from  the  Philistines,  and  when  I  read  at 
the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Saul  that  every  man  had  to  go 
down  to  the  Philistine  country  in  order  to  sharpen  his  agricul- 
tural implements,  why  then  I  say  that  we  have  the  story  of  two 
witnesses.  Now,  when  I  take  up  such  a  work  as  Livy,  for  ex- 
ample, the  Roman  historian,  and  I  find  similar  discrepancies  in 


Cp  HIGHER  CRITICISM  UNDER  REVIEW, 

that,  I  find  no  one  taking  pains  to  deny  or  explain  away  the 
discrepancies.  They  admit  and  receive  them.  Now  I  say, 
Why  not  do  it  also  in  respect  to  the  Bible?  Why  not  treat  it 
in  a  way  which  seems  to  me  as  fair  and  honest  and  straightfor- 
ward } 

I  contend  that  the  Bible  was  given  for  the  purpose  which 
was  expressed  here  this  afternoon  by  Dr.  McLane,  when  he  pre- 
sented before  you  so  eloquently  and  so  graphically  how  the  pur- 
pose of  the  Bible  is  to  present  a  way  of  redemption  from  sin. 
Christ  says,  "  I  am  come  that  they  may  have  life,  and  that  they 
may  have  it  more  abundantly."  Now  that  is  the  purpose  of  the 
Bible.  It  has  come  that  we  might  have  life,  and  that  we  might 
have  it  more  abundantly.  It  was  not  given  to  teach  history  in  a 
technical  way ;  it  was  not  given  to  teach  science  in  a  technical 
way,  but  it  was  given  to  teach  your  heart  and  my  heart,  and  to 
lead  us  into  a  higher  and  newer  and  fuller  life.  And  when  it 
comes  through  Jesus  Christ,  presented  in  that  way  to  the  sav- 
age, to  the  man  here  in  the  city,  or  wherever  it  is  proclaimed,  it 
has  the  one  same  effect.  This  critical  way  of  studying  the  Bible 
is  a  way  that  I  really  do  not  like.  I  do  not  think  much  of  it. 
Here  is  a  great  painting.  I  sometimes  use  this  illustration.  You 
stand  and  look  at  it,  and  a  man  comes  along  and  says,  "  That 
painting  is  wonderful."  It  may  be  like  the  Sistine  Madonna. 
Some,  when  they  sit  before  that  painting,  are  moved  to  tears,  it 
is  so  wonderful.  Suppose  a  man  comes  and  he  commences  to 
discuss  the  painting,  the  different  colors  that  are  used,  explains 
them  scientifically.  Suppose  he  goes  and  points  out  certain  in- 
accuracies which  may  be  in  the  painting  ;  tells  you  that  the 
Madonna  is  not  of  Jewish  features  or  cast.  Suppose  he  comes 
and  tells  you  that  very  likely  a  pupil  of  Raphael  drew  the  first 
sketch  of  the  painting,  and  that  the  great  artist  only  filled  in  and 
made  the  finishing  touches  of  it,  as  sometimes  occurs — proba- 
bly did  not  occur  in  reference  to  this  painting,  but  has  occurred 
in  reference  to  other  paintings  by  the  masters  of  Europe.  Now 
all  of  that  would  have  no  bearing  whatever  upon  the  effect  of 
that  painting  as  a  work  of  art.  It  would  not  touch  its  beauty  in 
any  way  or  shape.  It  would  still  be  there  just  as  powerful  to 
touch  and  to  move  man,  as  it  was  before.     Well,  now,  it  is  the 


HIGHER  CRITICISM  UNDER  REVIEW.  97 

same  with  the  Bible  and  the  work  of  the  Higher  Criticism. 
Many  people  think  a  great  deal  depends  upon  whether  it 
was  one  man  or  two  men  who  wrote  Isaiah.  I  am  simply  giving 
my  own  experience.  It  does  not  make  one  iota  of  difference  to 
me  in  regard  to  the  religious  truth  as  contained.  Do  you  sup- 
pose the  words,  "  Let  the  wicked  forsake  his  way,"  etc.,  are  any 
less  true  whether  Isaiah  number  one  or  Isaiah  number  two  wrote 
them  ?  And  so  it  is.  Of  some  things  I  am  certain,  and  that 
that  Book  is  the  Word  of  God  in  a  real  and  living  sense  to  my 
soul.  I  am  certain  of  that.  The  Higher  Criticism  does  not  in- 
validate in  any  way  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God. 


By  Prof.  G.  Frederick  Wright,  of  Oberlin  College  : 

It  has  seemed  to  me  that  the  discussion  ought  to  be  prolonged 
somewhat  in  order  to  have  both  parties  properly  understood.  I 
doubt  if  Professor  Curtis  would  receive  the  same  impression  from 
the  story  of  Joseph,  believing  it  to  be  true  and  believing  it  to  be 
a  fiction,  and  the  question  is  whether  he  believes  that  story  to  be 
true  ;  whether  there  was  such  a  Hfe  of  Joseph,  whether  those 
things  did  actually  happen.  And  so  in  regard  to  most  of  those 
Old  Testament  subjects.  They  approach  them  in  this  way  that 
those  who  believe  strongly  in  the  supernatural  are  inclined  to 
think  that  the  presumption  is  that  there  is  some  way  of  harmon- 
izing those  accounts,  and  they  look  for  that  harmony  on  that 
presumption,  whereas  it  seems  to  me  that  a  good  many  others 
look  for  where  they  may  possibly  make  a  discrepancy  and  they 
seem  to  think  that  is  the  natural  thing  to  do.  The  most  of  us 
are  led  through  our  experience  of  the  Bible  to  believe  that  there 
is  under  it  so  much  truth  that  we  will  readily  see  how  the 
harmony  can  exist.  If  you  take  two  good  witnesses  who  contra- 
dict one  another,  there  is  some  way  of  harmonizino-  the  results 
and  so  in  regard  to  the  question  of  Isaiah.  It  touches  our  belief 
with  respect  of  prophecy,  and  our  belief  with  respect  to 
the  interpretation  of  what  Christ  Himself  says  about 
these  things.  It  means  a  good  deal  if  Christ  says  our 
sins  are  to  be  forgiven ;  we  want  to  know  if  those  words  are 


98  HIGHER  CRITICISM  UNDER  REVIEW. 

true.  They  are  established  to  be  true  of  Christ  and  His  mira- 
cles and  the  truthfulness  of  this  record.  Are  these  words  of 
Isaiah  the  utterance  of  some  man  who  is  giving  a  vague  expres- 
sion to  some  impulse  of  his  mind,  or  has  he  a  solid  foundation  ? 
So  the  discussion  of  this  question,  whether  the  history  of  the 
Jews  is  a  proper  interpretation  of  human  nature,  is  one  that  we 
cannot  dispense  with.  I  presume  when  we  came  to  understand 
each  other's  terms  that  we  should  be  substantially  alike. 


By  Professor  H.  G.  Mitchell,  of  the  Boston  University: 

Mr.  Chairman:  There  are  so  many  things  that  I  should 
like  to  say  in  the  few  minutes  granted  me,  that  I  hardly  know 
where  to  begin  or  which  to  select. 

I  am  always  hurt  when  I  hear  such  things  as  have  just  been 
said  with  reference  to  certain  of  ourbibical  scholars.  Those  who 
say  them  are  utterly  mistaken.  It  is  very  easy  to  show  not 
only  that  these  honored  teachers  are  not  undermining  the  faith 
of  their  pupils,  but  that  it  is  ridiculous  to  suspect  them  of  so 
doing. 

I  find  an  illustration  of  the  latter  of  these  two  points  among 
my  early  recollections.  When  I  was  a  boy,  living  in  a  new 
country,  I  often  saw  examples  of  hasty  construction.  A  man 
wanted  a  house,  and  he  wanted  it  in  a  hurry.  If  he  waited  to 
dig  a  cellar  with  a  solid  wall,  he  could  not  get  it  enclosed  in 
time  to  suit  his  purpose.  He  therefore  planted  four  strong  posts 
at  the  proper  points,  and  built  his  house  upon  them,  and  then, 
perhaps,  after  the  harvest  or  the  winter  that  was  pressing 
him,  at  his  leisure  he  supplied  it  with  a  more  permanent  founda- 
tion. Now  suppose  that,  in  such  a  case,  when  the  masons 
began  operations,  the  good  woman  at  her  work  within,  on  hear- 
ing the  noise  under  her  feet,  and  seeing  the  earth  wheeled  into  her 
dooryard,  should  rush  out  and  forbid  further  excavation,  insist- 
ing that  the  workmen  were  bringing  the  house  down  upon  her 
and  her  family,  what  would  the  workmen  naturally  reply  ?  They 
might  try  to  show  her  that  the  work  must  proceed  in  spite  of  her 
fears,  but  some  one  would  probably  say:     "  Madam,  don't  you 


HIGHER  CRITICISM  UNDER  REVIEW.  99 

see  that  we  ourselves  are  under  the  house  ?     Does  it  seem  likely 
that  we  would  pull  it  down  over  our  own  heads  ?  " 

The  application  of  this  illustration  is  apparent.  The  scholars 
so  much  abused  are  Christians.  Their  God  is  the  God  of  the 
Bible,  and  the  salvation  in  which  they  rejoice  is  the  theme  of 
that  sacred  Book.  Have  they  not  as  much  or  more  at  stake 
than  their  brethren?  Is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  they 
would  wantonly  overthrow  the  Bible  and  thus  ruin  their  own 
dearest  hopes  for  time  and  for  eternity?  The  idea  is  evidently 
preposterous. 

How,  then,  is  the  persistent  activity  of  these  scholars  to  be 
explained  ?  They  would  say  that  instead  of  destroying  they 
were  fortifying-  the  Bible,  and  they  could  bring  proof  of  this  as- 
sertion. Sometime  ago  a  good  woman  complained  that  she  was 
losing  her  faith,  as  the  result  of  a  series  of  sermons  on  the  Bible 
from  the  modern  standpoint.  **  Tell  her,"  said  a  professor  in 
one  of  our  Eastern  colleges,  who  heard  of  the  case,  "  That  but 
for  the  Higher  Critics  and  their  help  in  removing  difficulties  in 
the  Bible,  I  never  should  have  been  saved." 

I  can  appreciate  this  statement,  for  I  myself  have  been  greatly 
helped  by  the  new  views.  I  was  taught  to  believe,  for  example, 
that  the  first  two  chapters  of  Genesis  were  a  single  inspired  ac- 
count of  creation;  but  the  time  came  when  I  felt  obliged  to  sur- 
render either  their  unity  or  their  inspiration.  My  later  teach- 
ers said:  "There  arc  two  accounts,"  and  my  difficulty  was  gone. 
The  story  of  the  rape  of  Sarah  is  another  case  in  point.  Most 
people  find  it  hard  to  believe  that  she  could  have  attracted 
Abimelech's  or  even  Pharaoh's  attention  at  the  age  at  which 
she  is  reported  to  have  been  taken  from  her  husband ;  but 
if  the  documentary  hypothesis  be  accepted  the  difficulty  is  re- 
moved, for  it  appears  that  the  data  from  which  Sarah's  age  must 
be  computed  came  from  one  source,  and  these  incidents  in  her 
life  from  other  documents.  Let  me  add  one  more  illustration. 
In  the  story  of  Hagar  we  are  told  that  when  she  found  herself 
without  water  in  the  desert  of  Beersheba  she  laid  her  child  under 
a  shrub  to  die,  but  was  bidden  to  go  and  take  him  up  again,  as  if 
he  were  yet  in  arms,  and  the  Greek  version  of  Gen.  xxi.  1 1  says 
that  when  Abraham  dismissed  her  he  put  the  child  on  her  shoul- 


100  HIGHER  CRITICISM  UNDER  REVIEW. 

der,  where  Oriental  women  still  carry  their  babies.  It  is  per- 
fectly clear  that  the  author  of  this  story  intended  to  represent 
Ishmael  as  very  young.  If,  however,  you  will  study  the  context, 
you  will  find  that,  according  to  our  present  Genesis,  he  must  have 
been,  at  least,  sixteen  years  of  age.  The  only  way  out  of  the  in- 
consistency is  to  take  refuge  in  the  hypothesis  that  the  book  is 
composite,  and  I,  for  one,  am  grateful  that  this  hypothesis  has 
been  proposed.  These  are  but  specimens.  If  I  had  time,  I 
could  cite  many  more  instances  in  which  I  have  found  relief  from 
skepticism  by  adopting  more  liberal  views  of  the  origin  and  struc- 
ture of  the  Bible.  I  am  satisfied  that  if  such  views  had  earlier 
become  current,  many  whose  faith  has  been  shaken  or  destroyed 
by  the  tirades  of  such  men  as  Col.  IngersoU  might  still  be  in 
happy  relations  with  the  Church, 

A  Voice  :  May  I  ask  the  Professor  how  he  explains  the  belief 
in  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible? 

Professor  Mitchell :  I  am  not  quite  clear  as  to  the  meaning  of 
the  question,  but  if  I  understand  him,  the  questioner  feels  that 
the  views  now  generally  held  by  biblical  scholars  are  inconsistent 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible.  They  are  in- 
consistent with  that  form  of  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  which 
makes  it  imply  the  infallibility  of  the  inspired  subject  and  the 
consequent  inerrancy  of  the  Scriptures,  but  not  with  the  rational 
and  biblical  form  of  that  doctrine.  "  But,"  some  one  will  say,  "if 
the  Bible  is  not  inerrant,  of  what  use  is  it?"  I  have  often  been 
asked  this  question.  I  always  meet  it  with  this  illustration: 
Some  time  ago,  when  I  was  spending  my  vacation  in  New  Hamp- 
shire, I  became  confused  with  reference  to  the  points  of  the  com- 
pass; so  thoroughly  confused  that  I  really  doubted  the  identity 
of  the  north  star.  I  sent  for  a  compass,  hoping  that  it  would 
help  me.  It  did  not  help  me,  for  when  I  consulted  it  I  found 
that  it  would  not  agree  either  with  the  statements  of  my  host  or 
the  testimony  of  the  heavens.  This  incident  led  me  to  give 
some  attention  to  the  nature  of  the  magnetic  needle,  when  I  dis- 
covered that  not  only  must  allowance  be  made  for  the  variations 
of  this  instrument  in  different  localities,  but  in  the  case  of  mari- 
ners* compasses  each  one  must  be  adjusted  to  the  ship  to  which 
it  is  to  belong.     Of  course,  since  that  time  I  do  not  trust  the 


HIGHER  CRITICISM  UNDER  REVIEW.  lOI 

compass  as  blindly  as  I  did,  but  I  know  that,  if  properly  used,  it 
will  always  prove  itself  reliable.  The  same,  it  seems  to  me,  is 
the  case  with  the  Bible.  There  is  in  it  a  human  and  fallible  ele- 
ment, but  this  element  is  dangerous  only  to  him  who  refuses  to 
recognize  it.  I  believe  that  many  have  made  shipwreck  of  their 
faith  because  they  had  been  taught,  as  are  still  taught  in  some  of 
our  schools,  that  a  single  error  in  the  Bible  would  destroy  its 
value  as  Scripture. 

Now  if  you  will  allow  me,  I  will  return  to  the  line  of  thought 
that  I  was  following,  and  tell  you  what  has  been  the  effect  of  the 
new  view  of  the  Bible  upon  my  students.  I  think  that  most  of 
them  accept  it  before  they  finish  their  course,  and  that  most  of 
the  others  do  so  soon  after  graduation.  I  have  never  known  but 
two  to  leave  our  school,  because  they  could  not  endure  the  doc- 
trine, and  one  of  them  afterwards  reconsidered  his  action.  I 
have  never  known  any  one  to  accept  it  who  did  not  find  it  help- 
ful to  him,  and  many  of  them  are  touchingly  grateful  for  being 
made  acquainted  with  it.  A  few  years  ago  a  young  man,  on 
whom  I  feared  that  my  instruction  had  made  no  impression, 
came  to  me  the  last  day  of  his  first  year,  and  said  :  "  Professor, 
when  we  began  the  study  of  Genesis,  I  feared  that  I  was  going 
to  lose  my  faith  in  the  Bible,  but  after  a  time  my  wife  suggested 
that  we  read  the  book  in  the  light  of  the  new  theory  at  prayers, 
and  I  can't  tell  you  how  grateful  I  am  that  we  were  led  to  make 
the  experiment.  It's  a  new  book  to  us."  A  few  days  ago,  I 
found  at  the  end  of  an  examination  paper — the  last  in  the  course 
— something  like  this  :  "  I  want  to  thank  you  for  the  good  that 
you  have  done  me,  and  especially  for  the  light  that  you  have 
thrown  on  this  book  of  Isaiah."  I  had  simply  interpreted  the 
book  as  the  product  of  two  distinct  authors  and  periods  Expe- 
riences of  this  sort,  which  are  of  almost  daily  occurrence,  make  it 
impossible  for  me  to  believe  that  others  who  teach  the  views 
under  discussion,  are  thereby  undermining  the  faith  of  their 
pupils. 

A  Voice  :  I  would  like  to  ask  if  there  is  any  criterion  of  in- 
spiration, except  that  it  seems  to  me  that  the  passage  must  be 
inspired } 

Professor  Mitchell:  There  are  two  sources  of  evidence  con- 


I02  HIGHER  CRITICISM  UNDER  REVIEW. 

cernirig  the  reality  of  inspiration.  In  the  first  place,  some  of  the 
sacred  authors  testify  that  they  themselves,  or  others  whose 
deeds  or  words  they  record  were  inspired.  In  such  case,  the 
first  question  is,  What  do  these  authors  mean  by  inspiration  ? 
after  which  a  second  is  in  order,  viz.  :  Do  the  words  or  deeds  re- 
corded substantiate  the  claim  to  inspiration  ?  There  are,  how- 
ever, large  portions  of  our  Scriptures  whose  authors  do  not  claim 
to  have  been  supernaturally  assisted  in  their  production.  In  the 
case  of  such  books,  the  question  is,  are  the  contents  of  these 
books  of  such  a  character  as  to  require  one  to  assert  that  their 
authors  must  have  been  inspired  to  produce  them  .^  Let  me 
add  that  the  whole  question  of  inspiration  is  one  of  secondary 
importance.  The  main  question  is,  Is  the  Bible,  whatever  its 
origin,  a  sufficient  guide  to  a  knowledge  of  God  and  His  will? 
If  it  is,  what  does  it  matter  by  what  process  it  was  produced  ? 


By  D.  S.  Gregory,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  of  New  York  : 

I  did  not  come  with  any  preparation  or  intention  of  making 
a  speech.  I  agree  with  the  last  speaker  who  has  spoken,  that  if 
the  Higher  Criticism  had  been  taught  over  this  country  a  few 
years  sooner,  Col.  IngersoU  would  now  have  no  adversaries,  that 
is,  if  it  had  been  accepted.  I  think  it  would  have  cleared  the 
track  for  him,  so  far  as  I  am  able  to  understand  it  and  its  re- 
sults, and  I  am  inclined  to  that  belief  from  the  observation  that 
I  have  had  of  the  results  of  it,  or  from  those  with  whom  I  have 
come  especially  in  contact.  Now,  there  are  certain  things  that 
I  wish  Dr.  Wright  could  have  presented,  as  I  am  sure  that  I 
agree  with  him  in  his  general  views  on  the  subject.  But  let  me 
say  just  one  or  two  things  about  this  matter  of  criticism. 

In  this  country  the  tendency,  as  Prof  Curtis  has  said,  is  to 
distinguish  between  the  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Lower  Criti- 
cism. The  Lower  Criticism  is  the  textual  criticism.  The  Higher 
Criticism,  literary  criticism,  embraces  everything  except  the 
Lower  Criticism,  according  to  the  common  notion.  Now,  tak- 
ing that  phrase.  Higher  Criticism,  there  is  Higher  Criticism,  and 
Higher  Criticism.     When  I  was  in  the  theological  seminary  I 


HIGHER  CRITICISM  UNDER  REVIEW.  IO3 

was  under  the  instruction  of  that  grand  man,  Dr.  William  Henry 
Green,  who,  in  my  estimation,  stands  at  the  head  of  Hebrew 
scholarship  in  this  country,  and  is  one  of  the  grandest  Christian 
men  I  ever  knew.  We  had  criticism.  We  did  not  call  it  Higher 
Criticism  in  those  days,  but  our  teacher  went  over  this  whole 
range  of  German  thought  and  criticism,  entered  into  all  the  the- 
ories and  discussed  them  with  our  class,  and  presented  the 
grounds  and  the  conclusions,  and  we  had  the  benefit  of  his  wise 
thought  upon  them.  He  met  all  these  points  that  are  being 
made  still.     There  was  another  way  of  explaining  them. 

But  I  say  there  is  this  kind  of  criticism  which  is  biblical  criti- 
cism in  its  proper  form.  We  call  it,  perhaps,  historico-gram- 
matical  or  grammatico-historical.  It  is  criticism  which  takes 
the  Bible  with  grammar  and  history,  and  seeks  to  get  at  the 
meaning  of  it.  It  begins  reverently,  accepting  the  great  mass 
of  evidences  with  which  you  come  to  the  Bible,  the  evidences  of 
Christianity  which  are  sufificient  with  the  average  man  to  predis. 
pose  him  to  at  least  a  friendly  reception  of  the  Bible  as  it  is  pre- 
sented to  him.  There  is  this  kind  of  criticism  which  has  had 
grand  results,  but  there  is  another  kind  of  criticism,  and  that  is 
the  Rationalistic  Higher  Criticism.  Now,  I  am  in  favor  of  the 
Higher  Criticism  which  I  call  Rational  Higher  Criticism,  but  I 
have  no  patience  with  the  Higher  Criticism  which  I  call  Ration- 
alistic Higher  Criticism — the  Higher  Criticism  that  assumes  that 
there  is  nothing  supernatural  in  the  Bible,  or  if  there  be  a  super- 
natural in  the  Bible  you  must  leave  it  out  in  your  study  of  the 
Bible.  Now,  no  Christian  who  has  accepted  the  evidences  of 
Christianity,  who  has  given  any  adequate  thought  or  study  to 
the  subject  of  the  evidences,  can  come  to  the  Bible  and  say,  I 
am  going  to  ignore  all  that  is  supernatural  in  it,  and  I  am  going 
to  take  what  I  find  left  after  that. 

When  a  man  takes  the  Bible  in  that  way  and  starts  out 
with  Genesis,  he  reads:  "In  the  beginning  God  created  the 
heavens  and  the  earth."  That  is  supernatural.  Leave  that  out. 
So  he  goes  on  down  through  and  he  will  find  by  the  time  he 
gets  to  the  end  he  has  left  out  pretty  much  everything — lost  it 
on  the  ground  that  it  is  supernatural.  It  involves  God,  it  in- 
volves miracles,  it  involves  prophecy,  it  involves  something  that 


I04  HIGHER  CRITICISM  UNDER  REVIEW. 

is  supernatural,  that  rests  on  the  supernatural.  This  Rational- 
istic Higher  Criticism,  which  assumes  that  we  can  take  the  Word 
of  God  and  take  it  without  any  reference  to  the  great  range  of 
Christian  evidences  and  deal  with  it  just  as  you  would  deal  with 
Robinson  Crusoe,  I  do  not  expect  any  high  results  from.  There 
have  been  grand  scholars  in  Germany  who  have  taken  that  other 
view.  They  assume  in  the  Pentateuch,  when  they  come  upon 
two  things  that  can  posssibly  be  tortured  into  contradictions  that 
they  are  difficulties,  and  they  set  to  work  to  see  if  those  difficul- 
ties can  be  reconciled,  and  they  succeed  in  reconciling  them,  I 
think;  at  least  they  succeed  to  the  satisfaction  of  many  of  the 
ablest  men  that  I  know,  and  the  ablest  thinkers  in  reconciling 
all  these  contradictions,  or  apparent  contradictions. 

Just  as  in  the  New  Testament,  you  can  start  out  in  the  Gos- 
pels and  say.  Here  Matthev/  differs  from  Luke  so  and  so.  Here's 
a  difficulty,  contradiction,  discrepancy,  and  that  very  soon  passes 
into  a  contradiction.  You  say.  Either  this  one  told  the  truth  or 
this  one  did.  Here's  this  genealogy  in  Matthew  :  If  that  is  cor- 
rect, that  one  in  Luke  is  not  correct.  There  is  a  perfectly  sim- 
ple way  of  reconciling  the  two.  There  are  two  different  geneal- 
ogies, as  every  one  has.  If  you  take  the  rational  way  and  study 
the  rationalistic  way,  it  is  a  very  easy  matter  to  reconcile  them. 
Just  so  in  the  Pentateuch.  The  connection  of  the  first  chapter 
and  the  paragraph  up  to  the  fourth  verse  in  the  second  chapter 
is  all  very  plain  to  Prof.  Wright,  and  very  plain  to  me  and  Dr. 
Green,  and  hundreds  of  men  whom  I  know,  men  who  have  been 
able  to  look  into  the  subject  and  who  have  looked  into  it  with 
as  much  scientific  acumen  and  patience  as  any  men  who  have 
reached  the  other  conclusion.  Now,  I  say,  on  the  basis  of  the 
evidences  of  Christianity  in  favor  of  the  Bible,  the  attitude  of 
the  Christian  Church  and  the  Christian  man  should  always  be 
that  this  Bible  is  proved  by  these  evidences  to  be  the  Word  of 
God.  The  presumption  is  against  contradiction.  It  is  against 
error,  until  error  is  absolutely  proved,  and  the  great  objection 
that  I  have  to  all  the  adverse  criticism  of  the  New  Testament 
and  to  the  adverse  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  is,  that  they 
exalt  simple  difficulties  into  the  place  of  absolute  contradictions. 
There  are  myriads  of  difficulties  in  the  work  of  creation  which 


HIGHER  CRITICISM  UNDER  REVIEW.  IO5 

the  scientists  have  never  understood  as  yet,  but  they  do  not  pre- 
tend to  say  that  these  are  contrary  to  law.  They  are  trying  to 
find  what  the  law  is  under  which  they  all  come.  And  I  believe 
that  there  is  a  great  divine  law  running  through  the  Bible  by 
which  all  these  discrepancies  are  being  reconciled. 


By  W.  W.  McLane,  D.D.,  Ph.D.,  New  Haven,  Conn.: 

I  suppose  that  the  sympathy  of  this  meeting  is  probably  very 
generally  with  the  position  of  the  gentleman  who  wrote  the 
paper.  I  happen  to  be  a  preacher  and  not  a  professor.  I  don't 
personally  like  much  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  because  it  is  not 
the  method  of  study  which  fits  a  man  particularly  for  preaching. 
I  find  that  I  must  read  the  story  of  Joseph,  not  to  find  out 
whether  it  is  one  story  or  two  traditions  woven  in  one  story,  but 
to  find,  as  Prof.  Curtis  has  said,  what  it  teaches  in  regard  to  loy- 
alty to  God  and  God's  care  of  man.  I  must  study  the  Bible  in 
that  way  or  I  do  not  help  the  people  in  preaching. 

Q.  Do  you  find  that  you  can  study  it  the  other  way  and  keep 
your  faith  in  it  .■' 

Ao  My  friend,  Professor  Curtis  here,  is  a  teacher.  He  is  a 
good  preacher,  I  have  no  doubt ;  but  he  is  a  teacher.  He  is 
obliged  to  teach  the  literature  of  the  Old  Testament  and  he  ar- 
rives at  certain  conclusions.  I  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
audience  to  one  thing  which  I  do  not  think  many  people  think 
of.  Many  people  confound  revelation  and  inspiration,  and  do 
not  distinguish  between  the  revelation  of  a  truth  to  the  mind  of 
man  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  the  mere  presence  of  the  Spirit  of 
God  which  may  direct  men  in  the  writing  of  historical  facts.  You 
must  distinguish  between  revelation  and  inspiration.  I  arose, 
however,  because  one  gentleman  back  here  referred  to  the  inju- 
rious effect  of  the  teaching  of  the  age.  lam  not  proposing  to 
stand  here  to  say  what  may  have  been  the  effect,  one  way  or 
another,  of  all  the  teaching  that  may  have  been  connected  with 
the  University.  I  do  not  know  how  far  the  influence  of  Prof. 
Harper  may  go  one  way  or  the  other.  Prof  Curtis  came  from 
a  Seminary  where  he  has  done  good  work.     He  is  now  teaching 


I06  HIGHER  CRITICISM  UNDER  REVIEW. 

in  Yale  Divinity  School,  and  when  his  students  come  into  my 
prayer  meeting,  holding  some  of  these  positions  which  I  know 
he  holds,  and  manifest  themselves  to  be  profoundly  full  of  faith 
in  the  Bible  and  full  of  loyalty  to  Jesus  Christ,  I  must  recognize 
that  fact.  When  one  of  his  students  said  to  me,  "The  influence 
of  Prof.  Curtis  is  especially  spiritual  and  helpful  to  the  students," 
and  when  I  can  testify  to  the  fact  that  when  he  appears  before 
us  ministers,  to  read  a  paper  to  us,  or  anything  of  that  kind,  I 
can  speak  not  for  myself,  but  for  them  also,  to  say  that  he  makes 
the  same  impression;  we  mustrecognize  that  fact,  andl  think  it  is 
due  to  such  men  as  Prof.  Curtis  and  Prof.  Mitchell,  to  recognize 
that  they  stand  as  Christian  men  who  have  a  personal  interest  in 
this  matter,  and  who  are  not  antagonizing  Christianity,  but  are 
honestly  seeking  after  truth.  And  we  must  be  careful  in  our  re- 
marks not  to  affirm  that  they  are  doing  detriment  where  they 
are  not.  And  that  is  the  reason  I  made  this  remark  to  say 
that  so  far  as  Prof.  Curtis's  influence  in  the  Seminary  of  Yale  is 
concerned,  I  know  it  is  on  the  side  of  the  Bible,  faith  in  the 
Bible  and  in  Christ. 


CHRIST  AT  THE  BAR  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

[Prepared  for  the  Summer  School  of  the  American  Insti- 
tute of  Christian  Philosophy,  July,  1893.] 

By  David  Jas.  Burrell,  D.D., 

Pastor  of  the  Marble  Collegiate  Church,  of  New  York. 

[The  writer  of  this  paper  is  well  aware  that  it  is  liable  to  misconstruction.  He 
believes,  however,  that  the  false  methods  of  the  Higher  Criticism  are  so  pernicious 
in  their  results  as  to  warrant  a  bold  attempt  at  reductio  ad  absurdum.  It  would  ap- 
pear that  this  can  be  best  accomplished  by  a  frank  and  fair  application  of  those  rules 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnate  Word.  If  this  shall  seem  irreverent,  let  the  blame 
be  laid  where  it  belongs.] 

IN  this  year  of  our  Lord,  191 8,  all  followers  of  Christ  have  rea- 
son to  congratulate  themselves  on  the  prevailing  freedom 
of  thought  and  discussion.  It  is  scarcely  believable  that  only 
twenty-five  years  ago  the  friends  of  the  Higher  Criticism  were 
under  reproach  by  reason  of  their  courageous  opposition  to  nar- 
row and  antiquated  views  of  Inspiration.  At  that  time  it  was  as 
much  as  a  minister's  good  and  regular  standing  was  worth  to 
breathe  a  word  against  inerrancy.  But  truth,  as  ever,  gained 
the  upper  hand.  Inerrancy,  riddled  by  the  running  fire  of  hon- 
est  scholarship,  died  the  death  ;  and  the  Bible  was  reduced  to  its 
proper  place  as  a  doctrinal  and  ethical  thesaurus,  a  venerable 
landmark  of  literature,  an  indispensable  Book  among  books. 
Toward  the  consummation  of  that  desirable  end  the  friends  of 
progress  were  enabled  to  help  themselves  greatly  by  insisting 
that  Christ  and  not  the  Bible  must  be  kept  upon  the  throne. 
The  word  "  Christo-centric  "  was  made  to  answer  a  most  useful 
purpose.  The  vice  of  bibliolatry  ceased  and  the  heart  of  the 
Church  was  centred  on  Jesus  Christ.  But  words  are  like  wear- 
ing apparel;  they  serve  their  time;  and  afterwards  are  better 
honored  in  the  breach  than  in  the  observance.  Thus  the  word 
*'  Christo-centric  "  has  served  its  day.  The  Written  Word  hav- 
ing now  been  adjusted  to  its  proper  place,  it  has  seemed  only 
meet  and  proper  that  scholarship  should  turn  its  attention  toward 

107 


I08         CHRIST  A  T  THE  BAR  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

the  Incarnate  Word.  It  is  for  these  reasons  and  under  such  con- 
ditions that  we  find  ourselves  in  the  midst  of  a  Christological 
controversy.  The  question  of  the  Inerrancy  of  the  Scriptures 
has  given  way  to  the  allied  and  complementary  question  of  the 
Perfection  of  Christ.  Bibliolatry  has  indeed  ceased,  but  we  are 
confronted  by  a  more  serious  danger — to  wit,  Christolatry.  Let 
us  be  free  and  frank  in  approaching  the  problem.  Thank  God 
the  time  has  gone  by  when  a  man  could  be  branded  as  a  heretic 
for  departing  from  traditionalism  or  falling  out  with  an  historic 
creed.  We  are  coming  to  perceive  more  and  more  that  religion 
is  a  life  and  not  a  theology.  The  question  of  the  hour  centres 
in  Jesus  who  is  called  the  Christ.  What  think  ye  of  Him  }  The 
Son  of  God  He  doubtless  was;  but  in  what  peculiar  sense  are  we 
to  understand  that  term?  For  there  are  many  sons  of  God.  A 
sublime  Figure  among  men  He  doubtless  was;  but  whether  or 
no  He  was  absolutely  free  from  those  ills  which  humanity  is 
heir  to  is  a  matter  which  only  the  most  rigid  and  courageous  scru- 
tiny can  determine.     And  this  is  the  question  before  us. 

I.  As  to  our  attitude.  The  same  broad  and  helpful  rules  of 
criticism  must  be  observed  in  these  premises  that  served  so  well 
the  purpose  of  the  Higher  Critics  in  their  controversy  respect- 
ing the  Written  Word. 

First,  and  foremost,  we  must  cherish  no  prejudgments.  It  is 
obvious  that  if  we  begin  by  assuming  that  Christ  was  "very  God 
of  very  God,"  or  that  He  was  in  anywise  unique  among  men,  we 
beg  the  question  at  the  outset  and  make  argument  impossible. 
This  mode  of  procedure  would  be  wholly  averse  to  the  critical 
spirit.  If  we  are  to  discuss  this  question  at  all  we  must  divest 
ourselves  of  former  convictions,  hold  judgment  in  equilibrium, 
and  insist  that  Jesus  shall  submit  to  the  same  critical  tests  that 
would  be  apphed  in  the  case  of  Homer,  Sesostris  or  Sakya- 
muni.  If  I  have  entertained  a  sentimental  regard  for  Him  as  an 
incomparable  Friend,  infallible  Guide,  and  divine  Redeemer,  that 
must  needs  be  laid  aside  for  the  purpose  in  hand.  The  only 
honest  critic  is  brother  to  the  juror  that  never  saw  the  prisoner^ 
never  read  the  newspaper,  nor  in  anywise  formed  an  opinion  re- 
specting the  case.  For  how  can  a  man  make  up  his  mind  if  his 
mind  is  already  made  up  }     Therefore  one  who  has  called  him- 


CHRIST  A  T  THE  BAR  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM.         IO9 

self  a  Christian  must  doff  his  Christianity  for  the  nonce  and  hold 
himself  open  to  conviction  either  way.  If  it  be  asked,  when  may 
he  resume  ?  we  answer,  As  soon  as  the  case  is  passed  upon. 
And  if  it  be  suggested  that  the  case  may  hold  fire  for  a  lifetime, 
we  answer,  Veritas  contra  mundum  !  No  matter  what  happens, 
we  dare  not  falter  in  our  search  for  truth. 

Second^  we  must  proceed  by  induction  exclusively.     This  is 
now  conceded  on  all  hands  to  be  the  scientific  method.     A  priori 
reasoning  is  obsolete.     It  may  indeed  be  necessary  in  courts  of 
justice,  as  jurists  contend,  but  never  in  the  province  of  spirit- 
ual things.     Here  facts  alone  must  tell  their  story.     By  facts  we 
understand  such  visible  and  tangible   phenomena  as  lead  to  in- 
controvertible conclusions.     There  must  be  no  "  In  the  nature  of 
the  case,"  no  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  and  therefore."     The  time 
for  reasoning  from   either  authority  or  general  principles   has 
passed  by.     There  must  be  no  reference  to  the  consensus,  nor  to 
traditional   belief,    nor  yet  to  "The  Law  and  the  Testimony." 
At  one  time  the  Scriptures  were  regarded  as  the  Court  of  Last 
Appeal  in  spiritual  questions;  but  since  their  inerrancy  has  been 
disposed  of  they  must  obviously  be  classed  with  other  documen- 
tary evidence.     Their   credibility  at  any  point  must  be  passed 
upon  before  we  can  receive  it.     It  is  scarcely   necessary  to  say 
that  proof-texts,  so  called,  are  not  admissible.     Faith,  as  such,  is 
ruled  out.     With  "things   not  seen"  we  have  nothing  to  do. 
Facts  must  be   forthcoming.     Nothing  but  cold  facts  —  "that 
■which  we  have  seen  and  handled  "  —  will  meet  the  demands  of 
the  scientific  method.     What  we  require  is  a  calm  analysis  of  the 
contents  of  the  Gospel.     We  must  take  Christ  as  we  find  Him. 
The  Incarnation,  the  Atonement  and  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus 
must  be  frankly   and  dispassionately  surveyed.     Love,  devotion 
and  kindred  sentiments  must  not  be  allowed  in  any  wise  to  prej- 
udice the  controversy.      If  the  critic   would  arrive  at  the  truth 
respecting  the  virtues  of  the  blood  of  Jesus,  he  must   take  his 
position  under  the  cross  with  those  who  "stood  beholding,"  must 
subject  that  blood  to  the  analysis  which  is  usual  in  similar  cases 
and  must  be  guided  to  his  conclusions  by  a  rigid  calculation  as  to 
serum,  coagulum,  iron  and  phosphorus.     It  must  ever  be  remem- 
bered that  the  heart  has  no  lot  nor  portion  in  a  judicial  pro- 


no        CHRIST  AT  THE  BAR  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

cedure.  Tears  blind  the  eyes  in  any  administration  of  justice. 
Judicis  est  semper  in  causis  veriim  sequi.  As  King  Richard  said 
when  called  upon  to  sit  in  judgment  on  his  nephew  Bolingbroke, 
so  must  we  say  of  Jesus, 

Now  by  my  sceptre's  awe  I  make  a  vow  ; 
His  neighbor  nearness  to  our  sacred  bio  ' 
Shall  nothing  privilege  him,  nor  partialize 
The  unstooping  firmness  of   my  upright  soul. 

II.  Thus  far  as  to  our  attitude ;  now  with  respect  to  the  mode 
of  procedure. 

The  first  thing  to  be  done  is  to  arrive  at  the  best  possible 
portrait  of  Christ.  And  here  we  shall  find  ourselves  confronted 
by  many  difficulties.  The  four  accounts  of  Jesus,  to  begin  with, 
are  variously  divergent  and  contradictory.  To  enter  into  par- 
ticulars would  lead  us  far  beyond  the  prescribed  limits  of  this 
paper.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  Matthew  dwells  upon  the  Messianic 
character  of  Jesus  and  His  descent  from  Abraham  and  David. 
He  offers  us  a  kingly  picture.  In  Mark  we  have  a  very  dif- 
ferent presentation  ;  we  look  in  vain  here  for  royal  character- 
istics. Jesus  is  a  servant,  coming  not  to  be  ministered  unto 
but  to  minister,  and  as  such  His  genealogy  is  a  matter  of  Httle 
or  no  moment  ;  therefore,  none  is  given.  In  Luke  we  have  yet 
another  and  wholly  distinct  silhouette.  Here  the  lineage  of 
Jesus  is  traced  not  to  Abraham  but  to  the  mythical  Father  of 
the  race.  The  conception  is  distinctly  human  ;  He  is  the  Son 
of  Man.  In  John  we  have  still  another  view.  As  the  last  of  the 
four  biographers  of  Jesus  he  outdoes  his  predecessors  in  ascrib- 
ing glory  to  Him  as  the  eternal,  uncreated  Word  of  God.  His 
genealogical  table  goes  back  to  the  remote  ages  of  eternity.  He 
puts  a  severe  strain  upon  human  language  n  his  effort  to  represent 
Jesus  as  every  way  co-equal  with  the  Father  ;  calling  Him  the 
Light  of  the  World;  the  Way,  the  Truth  and  the  Life;  and 
identifying  Him  with  the  ineffable  I  AM.  A  further  examina- 
tion of  these  four  accounts  of  Jesus  would  show  them  to  be 
discrepant  at  many  points.  For  centuries  the  ingenuity  of  an 
alleged  scholarship,  now  happily  extinct,  sought  vainly  to  rec 
oncile  them.  From  the  song  of  the  angels  to  the  titulum  on  the 
cross  there  are  disagreements  without  number.     It  will  be  seen, 


CHRIST  A  T  THE  BAR  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM.         1 1 1 

therefore,  that  the  effort  to  combine  these  biographies  into  a 
consistent  portrait  of  Jesus  is  not  without  difficulty.  But  as  in 
the  previous  controversy  the  preliminary  step  to  the  higher  crit- 
icism of  the  Scriptures  was  the  determination  of  a  fairly  accurate 
text,  so,  if  we  are  to  arrive  at  the  truth  respecting  Jesus  we  must 
at  the  outset  secure  the  best  possible  portrait  of  Him. 

Then  we  are  ready  for  our  next  step,  namely,  to  weigh  and 
estimate  the  contents  or  phenomena  of  this  portrait,  which  brings 
us  into  the  distinctive  province  of  the  Higher  Criticism.  And 
the  fairness  of  our  conclusions  will  still  depend  upon  our  proceed- 
ing without  warp  or  bias. 

At  this  point  we  shall  doubtless  find  so  many  incongruities  in 
the  commonly  accepted  view  as  to  force  upon  us  a  reconstruction 
of  the  doctrine  of  Christ.  Here  again,  by  reason  of  the  limitations 
of  this  paper  we  must  content  ourselves  with  mere  generaliza- 
tions. It  is  not  a  pleasant  task  to  point  out  imperfections  in 
Christ.  Nevertheless  "historical  criticism  finds  them  and  we 
must  meet  the  issue,"  whether  they  destroy  the  traditional  im- 
maculateness  of  the  Saviour  or  not.  It  has  been  taught  by  some 
theologians  that  one  verified  imperfection  destroys  His  divine- 
ness ;  this  claim,  however,  is  a  "  ghost  of  modern  evangelicalism 
to  frighten  children."  "And  indeed  were  we  to  abandon  the 
whole  field  of  supernaturalism  so  far  as  the  circumstantials  of  the 
character  of  Jesus  are  concerned  and  limit  His  divineness  to  the 
essential  contents  of  His  life  and  character,  we  would  still  have 
ample  room  to  seek  divine  authority  where  alone  it  is  important, 
in  the  teaching  that  guides  our  devotions,  our  thinking  and  our 
conduct." 

The  frequent  errors  in  the  scientific  allusions  of  Jesus  are 
such  as  to  make  it  quite  certain — to  put  it  as  mildly  as  possible — 
that  He  was  totally  unacquainted  with  science.  It  is  with  the 
utmost  difficulty  and  only  by  a  severe  strain  of  the  imagination 
that  His  references  to  man  and  nature,  the  processes  of  natural 
law  and  the  destiny  of  material  things  can  be  reconciled  with 
such  fundamental  principles  as  evolution,  natural  selection,  re- 
version to  type  and  the  conservation  of  force.  In  even  so  small 
a  matter  as  the  germination  of  a  corn  of  wheat  his  statements 
are  as  contrary  to  fact  as — to  use  a  familiar  parallel — were  the 


112         CnRIST  AT  THE  BAR  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

preposterous  allegations  of  the  author  of  Leviticus  with  respect 
to  the  coney. 

Nor  do  the  doctrinal  and  ethical  teachings  of  Jesus  present 
any  better  showing.  As  to  doctrine  He  gives  us,  indeed,  almost 
nothing  in  systematic  form ;  His  allusions  to  sin,  redemption,  re- 
generation, retributive  justice,  and  the  restitution  of  all  things 
being  so  brief,  fragmentary  and  incongruous  as  to  render  it  quite 
impossible  for  even  His  most  devoted  adherents  to  arrive  at  any 
consensus  of  belief.  His  averments  respecting  a  set  day  of  judg- 
ment and  a  local  heaven  and  hell  with  such  material  adjuncts  as 
fire  and  brimstone  must  stagger  the  faith  of  the  most  credulous. 

In  the  province  of  ethics,  attention  is  directed  to  His  in- 
junctions respecting  filial  love  (Matt.  viii.  22)  ;  divorce  (Matt.  v. 
32);  indiscriminate  charity  (Matt.  v.  42);  and  many  other  prin- 
ciples of  the  moral  law.  The  woes  pronounced  upon  His  enemies 
have  in  them  all  the  malignity  of  the  imprecatory  Psalms  His 
announcement  of  the  Golden  Rule  as  an  original  maxim  can 
scarcely  b  regarded  as  otherwise  than  disingenuous,  and  in  His 
interview  with  certain  disciples  on  the  way  to  Emmaus  as  else- 
where, He  appears  to  have  lent  Himself  to  deliberate  deceit. 
And  how  shall  we  explain  away  such  hyperbole  as  that  respect- 
ing the  rich  man's  salvation  or  the  faith  that  removes  mountains  } 
The  list  might  be  prolonged  indefinitely. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  prophetic  utterances  of  Jesus,  All 
efforts  to  find  any  historical  correspondence  with  His  predictions 
respecting  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  have  been  lamentable 
failures.  The  great  body  of  Christ's  prophecies  "  have  not  only 
never  been  fulfilled,  but  cannot  be  fulfilled  because  the  time  has 
passed  forever." 

Nor  can  accuracy  be  ascribed  to  His  scriptural  references. 
He  used  the  Septuagint  Version,  which  no  scholar  would  have 
done.  Had  He  been  familiar  with  the  real  facts  as  developed  in 
subsequent  research  He  surely  would  not  have  referred  to  Moses 
as  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  or  to  Isaiah  as  the  writer  of  the 
latter  portion  of  the  prophecy  bearing  his  name.  Indeed  there 
is  nowhere  a  hint  or  suggestion  of  any  sort  that  betrays  any  ac- 
quaintance whatsoever  on  His  part  with  even  the  simplest  facts 
of  the  Higher  Criticism.     He  indubitably  sanctioned  the  story  of 


CHRIST  AT  THE  BAR  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM.        II3 

the  deluge,  the  destruction  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  by  fire  from 
heaven,  the  changing  of  Lot's  wife  into  a  pillar  of  salt,  and  Jonah 
in  the  whale's  belly.  If  He  knew  that  these  were  fables,  why  did 
He  lend  Himself  to  their  furtherance  ?  If  he  did  not  know,  how 
could  He  offer  Himself  as  an  inerrant  guide  in  matters  of  truth? 

An  examination  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus  would  lead  to  similar 
conclusions.  The  most,  if  not  all,  of  these  miracles  have  been 
accounted  for  upon  common  principles  of  natural  law  ;  yet  there 
is  no  denying  that  He  encouraged  the  popular  tendency  to  regard 
them  as  weird  and  unearthly,  nay,  further,  that  He  rashly  ventured 
His  Messianic  claims  upon  their  supernaturalness.  It  is  needless 
to  extend  these  illustrations.  As  we  have  already  said,  it  is  not 
a  pleasant  task  to  point  out  the  faults  of  Jesus.  We  have  not 
taken  out  a  brief  to  prove  His  imperfection.  "  Conservative  men 
should  hesitai:  before  they  force  the  critics  in  self-defence  to 
make  a  catalogue  "  of  the  defects  in  His  life  and  character. 

WHAT  ARE   THE  CONCLUSIONS? 

(i)  There  is  no  soHd  basis  for  the  doctrine  of  an  absolutely 
perfect  Christ.  As  the  inerrant  Scriptures  disappeared  before 
the  clear  light  of  scholarship,  so  does  the  kindred  fable  of  the 
immaculate  Christ  vanish  under  similar  conditions  Hke  a  fog-bank 
before  the  rising  sun. 

(2)  If  it  be  alleged  that  the  imperfections  ascribed  to  the 
character  of  Jesus  are  due  to  His  biographers  or  to  fallible  copy- 
ists, we  answer  we  have  to  deal  with  Christ  as  we  have  Him.  As 
to  an  original  Christ,  flawless  and  without  guile,  the  suggestion 
is  merely  hypothetical.  No  living  man  has  ever  seen  Him. 
There  is  no  portrait  of  Him  in  existence.  All  current  accounts 
of  Him,  scriptural  and  otherwise,  agree  with  the  foregoing  repre- 
sentation of  Him. 

(3)  If  it  be  alleged  that  the  original  Christ  must  be  received 
by  faith,  on  the  assumption  that  God  would  not  reveal  Himself 
in  an  imperfect  Christ,  we  answer  again  that  faith  has  no  place 
in  a  judicial  investigation ;  and  all  such  a  priori  considerations 
are  foreign  to  the  scientific  method.  When  it  was  claimed  in  the 
former  controversy  that  the  original  autograph  of  the  Scriptures 
was  inerrant,  for  the  reason  that  inspiration  is  a  divine  breathing 


1 14         CHRIST  A  T  THE  BAR  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

and  God  could  not  breathe  a  lie,  the  fallacy  of  such  reasoning  was 
instantly  apparent.  And  by  the  same  token,  perfection  cannot 
on  similar  a  priori  grounds  be  ascribed  to  Jesus  as  the  Incarnate 
Word  of  God. 

(4)  While  disavowing  the  divine  perfection  of  Jesus  we  are 
prepared  to  insist  that  all  the  essentials  of  such  perfection  were 
in  Him.  He  was  not  God,  but  contained  Him.  He  was  not 
truth,  but  contained  it.  He  was  not  the  Incarnate  Word,  but 
contained  it.  His  character  was  to  perfection  as  quartz  is  to 
gold.  The  open  question  is  purely  quantitative,  whether  (so  to 
speak)  the  quartz  contains  the  gold  in  paying  quantities  or  not. 

(5)  The  admixture  of  imperfection  in  the  character  of  Jesus  is 
what  should  be  expected  in  the  nature  of  the  case.  Though  be- 
gotten by  the  Holy  Ghost  He  was  born  of  a  woman  and  must 
needs  inherit  her  human  frailty.  In  like  manner  the  errors  of 
Scripture  were  traced  to  the  personal  infirmities  of  those  holy 
men  who  wrote  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  The 
parallel  is  exact.  The  co-operation  of  the  divine  with  the  human 
never  yet  resulted  in  an  indefective  product.  The  faults  of  the 
Incarnate  Word  are,  therefore,  after  the  precise  analogy  of  those 
in  the  Written  Word  of  God. 

(6)  We  have  no  occasion  nor  necessity  for  an  immaculate 
Christ.  Every  purpose  is  answered  by  the  imposing  figure  of 
One  who,  while  pre-eminent  in  wisdom  and  goodness,  shared  the 
infirmities  of  His  fellow-men.  We  gain  nothing  by  conjuring  up 
an  impossible  and  unbelievable  Avatar.  What  we  want  is  a  work 
ing  basis  and  we  find  it  in  the  doctrine  of  the  historical  Christ,  the 
Christ  who  is  set  forth  in  the  errant  Scriptures  and  the  equally  errant 
lives  of  Christian  people,  that  is  the  errant  Christ.  If,  in  arriving  at 
this  result,  we  seem  to  have  lost  some  of  our  traditional  beliefs,  we 
find  abundant  compensation  in  the  sense  of  having  followed  a 
reasonable  course  of  argument  to  its  inevitable  conclusions.  The 
fearless  seeker  after  truth  must  not  shrink  from  the  consequences 
of  his  temerity.  And  it  must  ever  be  remembered  that  nothing 
in  the  universe  is  to  be  valued  with  truth.  This  is  the  pearl  of 
great  price.  Thrice  happy  is  he  who  parts  with  everything  that 
he  may  buy  it. 

It  would,  however,  be   a   grievous   mistake  to  suppose  tnat 


CHRIST  A  T  THE  BAR  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM.         1 1 5 

in  stripping  away  the  vain  traditions  that  have  gathered 
about  Christ  we  have  parted  with  Christ  Himself.  Is  a  tree 
destroyed  by  wise  pruning?  Did  we  lose  the  Scriptures  when 
we  proved  them  to  be  full  of  inaccuracies  ?  Were  they  not  rather 
the  more  endeared  to  us  ?  So,  now  that  we  perceive  Christ  in 
His  true  character,  we  love  and  revere  Him  a  thousand-fold 
more  than  ever.  If  any  of  His  people  are  devoted  to  Him,  we 
more.  A  judicious  attachment  is  ever  more  loyal  than  a  whim- 
sical and  ill-grounded  infatuation.  Our  Christ,  stripped  of  the 
gaudy  tinsel  with  which  superstition  had  decked  Him,  rernains 
to  us  the  wisest  of  teachers,  the  most  kindly  of  philanthropists, 
the  most  infallible  of  guides,  the  most  perfect  flower  of  humanity, 
and  the  best  Incarnation  of  Deity  that  is  possible  to  our  fallen 
race.  '*  That  mightiest  heart  that  ever  beat,  stirred  by  the  Spirit 
of  God,  how  it  wrought  in  His  bosom."  *  We  accept  Him  as 
Redeemer  and  Friend.  We  recognize  His  unspeakable  goodness 
in  giving  Himself  for  us.  None  shall  exceed  us  in  devotion  to 
Him;  none  shall  sing  more  loudly  or  joyously  in  His  honor.  He 
is  the  foundation  of  our  faith  and  the  corner-top-stone  of  our  life 
and  character.  "  He  remains  the  highest  model  of  religion  within 
the  reach  of  our  thought  and  no  perfect  piety  is  possible  without 
His  presence  in  the  heart."  t  "Whatever  may  be  the  surprises 
of  the  future,  Jesus  will  never  be  surpassed.  His  worship  will 
grow  young  without  ceasing;  His  story  will  call  forth  tears  with- 
out end,  His  suffering  will  melt  the  noblest  hearts;  all  ages  will 
proclaim  that  among  the  sons  of  men  there  is  none  born  greater 
than  Jesus."  % 

♦  Theodore  Parker.  f  David  Strauss.  %  Ernest  Renan. 


AUGUSTE  COMTE  AND  POSITIVISM. 

[Read  at  the  monthly  meeting  of  the  American 
Institute  of  Christian  Philosophy,  May,  1893.] 

By  David  H.  Greer,  D.D.,  of  New  York. 

THERE  is  perhaps  no  man  of  eminence  in  modern  times 
concerning  whom  there  is  such  diversity  of  opinion  as 
Auguste  Comte.  While  a  few  ardent  admirers  are  inclined  to 
give  him  almost  unbounded  homage  and  to  regard  him  as  the 
greatest,  or  one  of  the  greatest  thinkers  living  or  dead,  there 
are  others  who  speak  of  him  as  having  been  crazed  with  some 
constitutional  disorder  or  "  maniacal  disease,"  and  who  treat  him 
with  a  slight  bordering  upon  pity  or  contempt.  Each  of  these 
appraisements  is  partial  and  one-sided,  although  it  is  not  difficult 
to  see  how  each  of  them  should  have  been  made  or  how  the 
second  should  be  the  more  common  of  the  two. 

Comte's  career  had  two  sides  to  it  or  rather  two  stages  m  it — 
that  of  the  philosophic  thinker  and  that  of  the  religious  reformer. 
It  is  in  connection  with  this  latter  office  that  those  eccentricities 
appear  which  have  made  him  obnoxious  to  such  a  large  number 
of  persons,  and  yet  with  that  mistaken  estimate  of  his  services 
which  is  not  uncommon  to  men  who  are  endowed  with  great 
capacity  and  afflicted  with  great  conceit,  it  is  those  very  eccen- 
tricities which  he  himself  has  emphasized  as  the  most  important 
features  of  his  life-work  and  thrust  the  most  conspicuously  upon 
the  public  notice.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  men  are 
inclined  to  forget  the  great  genius  of  Comte  the  philosopher,  in 
remembering  the  colossal  vanity  of  Comte  the  high-priest  of 
Humanity.  And  yet  despite  these  drawbacks  he  is,  as  Dr. 
Martineau  remarks,  "  a  large  and  potent  factor  in  modern  specu- 
lation  and  thought.  A  few  vigorous  minds  have  been  moulded 
by  him  to  an  extent  unknown  perhaps  even  to  themselves,  and 
many  more  owe  no  slight  obligation  to  the  pregnant  hints  scat- 

116 


Makers 
Syracuse,  N.  Y. 

PAT.  JAN.  21.  I90S 


m 

Date  Due 

. 

^\ 

^"  "-^f^ 

^ 

<|) 

